The WTC fuel explosions seem much too large for ordinary passenger carrying 767s which had already burned up a good portiuon of their fuel
loads.

Wow!! You just make up new stuff, as you go along?

...767s which had already burned up a good portiuon of their fuel...

? The airplanes had been in the air for, what? 1:20? They were fueled for a roughly six-hour transcon flight, with required reserves and
extras, they'd have had the equivalent fuel to fly for over seven hours before exhaustion.

Let's look at the explosion of jet fuel from a jet crash:

Not 'quoted' here, but your fantasy of hte magical 'replacements' in flight is simply...well, fantasy!

AND the notion of a Pentagon 'fly-over'?? NO ONE saw it? (oh...there's one guy who NOW claims to have seen this happen. ONE?)

And, the other witnesses missed something like this???
(Be sure to turn up your sound!)

D.Duck, please describe, then, why it is considered by you to be bunk?

We are talking about the use of hijacked airplanes here. YOU seem to think AAL 11 didn't fly. YET you can clearly see that UAL 175 and UAL 93 flew,
per the same BTS stats that have convinced you that AAL 11 and AAL 77 didn't fly.

Believing in a conspiracy is one thing but you show no regard for anyone.

Also, these men were trained to do one thing and that is kill the cockpit and fly the planes into a target. A pilot, even if he had military training,
would be hard pressed to fight off an attack like that. The box cutters were a perfect weapon to use. Sharp, small and deadly. All they needed to do
was cut their throats. Remember, many of these hijackers cut their teeth in Chechnya and other locales in Asia.

The perfect weapon was used and we should be glad that the structural integrity of the WTC stood up or the loss of life would have been 5x greater.

I think one of the best possible answers to your question is that the so called "terrorists" planned it that way.

Take the jets and crash them into the towers. Wait say an hour (plenty of response time) let as many police, fire, feds, spectators show up on the
scene then collapse the building. Debunker will tell you the "terrorists" are famous for doing this.

posted by Spreston
The WTC fuel explosions seem much too large for ordinary passenger carrying 767s which had already burned up a good portion of their fuel
loads.

posted by weedwhacker
Wow!! You just make up new stuff, as you go along?

...767s which had already burned up a good portiuon of their fuel...

The airplanes had been in the air for, what? 1:20? They were fueled for a roughly six-hour transcon flight, with required reserves and extras,
they'd have had the equivalent fuel to fly for over seven hours before exhaustion.

No whacker. No need to make anything up is there? You are the person who makes things up with your specious jet engines spinning parts 2 miles away
from the airplane buried underground physics at Shanksville aren't you?

(note that they came to the conclusion that a 767-200 fully fueled for a cross-continental trip to LA could NOT have contained a sufficient amount of
fuel to account for the fireball and smoke cloud observed – without knowledge of the Tanker Transport or of the extra equipment [pod and pipe
structure] retrofitted to it.

The German engineers estimate that the explosion smoke cloud from the alleged Flight 175...

"Alleged"???

"smoke cloud"???

You really will believe anything, just so it fits a twisted fantasy.

IF these German alleged 'scientists' measured the smoke cloud to arrive at their calculations, and you fell for that as
"proof"...well....

I don't know how to help you, then. This sort of desperate clinging to the most complex of scenarios, and using anything, no matter how
preposterous, to try to support a pre-determined mindset is just sorta sad.

Really, after all of these years, IF there were any credibility whatsoever to any of these allegations, then there'd be a heckuva lot more
people on your side of the fence.

As it is, those who actually have some experience in aviation, just for instance, can pull apart so many elements of this fantasy that is being woven.
I don't blame you for falling for it, because without the knowledge base needed for critical thinking in areas you're not familiar with, it could
seem plausible, from the outside, to a layperson.

eta: How much fuel do you suppose was onboard that B52 when it crashed, in the video up above? 180 cubic metres??

BTW...I did some math. 180 cubic metres = 6,357 cubic feet. That volume will equal 47,554 gallons. That much fuel would weigh 320,990 pounds. Max
takeoff weight for a B767-200 is 395,000. I guarantee you the empty airplane weighs more than 74,000 pounds.

Oh really? You are the expert which automatically makes you the expert always correct in every post? Are you including such logic with your
specious jet engines spinning parts 2 miles away from the airplane buried underground physics at Shanksville?

Your expertise in aviation along with another alleged expert Mr Reheat verifies that Wile E Coyote physics is a bonafide physics, at
least on 9-11-2001?

Smoke Cloud analysis...are you kidding? Have you ever been to NYC? Did you ever see the Magnitude of those buildings? I saw them the year they opened.
I went on the roof to the observation deck before some lunatic tried to kill himself. I still drive into NYC without staring in awe that they are
gone.

Stop looking at pictures and look at a video of that day. Just one.
Plane Number one

Narrator: "A released fan blade contains enough energy to throw a medium sized car some 100 feet into the air."

An aluminum fan blade, released whilst spinning, will travel in the direction 90 degrees from the axis of the shaft that it was attached to. The fan
blades on a jet engine are NOT heavy, one person can easily carry one. IF it has that much energy, to lift a car 100 feet, imagine how far it would
travel if released on its own?

Get some string (a yoyo, say) and spin it around over your head, and let go. Does it fall straight down? I know it's an oversimplified example, but
sometimes...

The German engineers estimate that the explosion smoke cloud from the alleged Flight 175...

"Alleged"???

Too technical for you to understand?

"Alleged" means many investigators think Flight 175 was swapped with another aircraft which was remotely flown into the South Tower. The military
replacement aircraft with transponder on flies above or below Flight 175 then turns transponder off. The two aircraft occupy the same spot on the
radars and show as one blip.

The two flights swap identities. Flight 175 turns on transponder with military replacement aircraft code and continues on to destination airport.
Military replacement aircraft under remote pilot and carrying extra fuel continues on to South Tower.

Firstly, your attitude is not helping your cause, not in the slightest.

Secondly, I am seeing the same old, same old here. It is barely worthy of a response. However, since you're insisting on twisting statements and
muddling the waters ---

Your well documented photo of something in a ditch, with a backhoe shovel. I NEVER said exactly what that is. YOU guys keep saying it's one of the
engine carcasses. I SPECULATED, based on its proximity to the surface, that it might be a portion of the APU.

NOW...others have talked about finding engine parts in or near the pond that is some distance away. Again, your camp likes to twist and sneer, and
mockingly say that the "engine must have rolled two miles through the trees", or something in that same vein. BUT, I thought that what was
found near the pond were PIECES of an engine, possible the N1 fan blades (or parts of) and I supposed that it is feasible that a piece could have been
flung away, as part of the crash impact sequence.

When they test an engine, as in the video above, to destruction, why to you think they film it with a high-speed camera?

Since there is NO video of the UAL 93 impact, only estimated guesses can be drawn as to the vectors of all the parts, and exactly how they behaved.
This is arrived at by deduction, and observation and measurement of the pieces where found, and the original location on the airplane.

If you drive your car into a brick wall at 100 MPH, and the left rear hubcap flies off and lands at a certain point, you don't expect an accident
investigator to come along and exclaim, "It's been staged!!!"

He/she calculates how and why that hubcap got to where it did. ( Of course, no one really cares about the hubcap in the car crash example --- unless
it decapitates someone or something like that!

)

Point is, in the aftermath, the dynamics can be interpreted, even without a video record, just by using physics.

The military replacement aircraft with transponder on flies above or below Flight 175 then turns transponder off. The two aircraft occupy the
same spot on the radars and show as one blip.

The two flights swap identities. Flight 175 turns on transponder with military replacement aircraft code and continues on to destination
airport...

Pure Hollywood fantasy, like it came from a really bad Bruce Willis script!

We have suicide bombers who drive cars, suicide bombers you drive trucks, suicide bombers who strap themselves with explosives, and infiltrate before
blowing up. There's just no need to make it more complicated than it was!!

Honestly, I don't understand this morbid fascination with impossible scenarios. It is borderline sick....

D.Duck, please describe, then, why it is considered by you to be bunk?

We are talking about the use of hijacked airplanes here. YOU seem to think AAL 11 didn't fly. YET you can clearly see that UAL 175 and UAL 93 flew,
per the same BTS stats that have convinced you that AAL 11 and AAL 77 didn't fly.

Why? In your own words.

BTW...I knew the F/O on AAL 77.

I have showed you why Flight 11 did not fly on 9/11 and if you work in the airline business you should know why that is reliable info.

You give me a lot of word salad about you working at an airline and know the crew on flight 77.

Well I know Donald Rumsfeld, now do you see how easy it is to spit out BS so please stay away from that unless you are willing to tell me your name
and what airline you work at so I can check you.

You are asking me to speculate on flight 93 and 175 but sorry I don't want to speculate but that does not mean I don't have a theory but at this
time I keep that to myself.

So out of your list of 266 people allegedly on all four 9-11 flights, only a total of 11 made the 9-11 Compensation Fund list. That must mean that the
families of 255 (less the 19 alleged hijackers) of the people allegedly aboard the four flights did not bother to file for compensation, or they
did not exist.

That kind of agrees with the fact that only one family comprised of two persons, bothered to travel to LAX and SFO to inquire about their family
members allegedly aboard the four 9-11 flights.

Most of the families did not exist and most of the passengers of the four flights did not exist either.

How come the reporter at Los Angeles Airport only saw two family members of the alleged people on the three flights three hours later? Don't
the airlines usually console the families of victims of air disasters? There should have been hundreds; even thousands of California family members
and friends and fellow employees showing up for the victims of all four flights, and both airports were shut down and evacuated?

Why? So the American people and the reporters and the world would not quickly realize that most of the alleged passengers on board those alleged
hijacked aircraft were either fictional or not dead after all?

So how come all these families and friends of these 266 alleged people aboard the four 9-11 aircraft did not show up at LAX or SFO before those two
airports were evacuated and shutdown at 12:04 and 12:15 PM EDT?

I have showed you why Flight 11 did not fly on 9/11 and if you work in the airline business you should know why that is reliable
info.

You merely sidestepped, and now hide behind BTS, when I tell you why just because both AAL flights don't show, you ignore.

And, ignoring other evidence that shows AAL 11 flew that day.

What's funny, in a sad way, is the people who actually worked those flights, on that day, Mechanics, Fuelers, Ramp, Ticket Counter, Gate Agents,
Dispatchers, Res Agents, Operations Agents....all of them likely don't visit a site like this, or ANY of the 'conspiracy' sites. Why would they
bother? Perhaps they tried, at one time. But, really, when lies get spread by those who know better, and innocent people who buy it willingly assist
in spreading it, then really, what's the point?

This is looking more and more like a "Moon Hoax" scenario, or even in some ways it resembles the "creationist" versus evolution.

"Moon Hoax", "Truther", "creationist", even "Flat Earther" (if there really are any, and it's not just a wry joke) seem to work the same
ways, down deep. They desperately want to find a flaw in ANYTHING remotely associated with the "PTB", no matter how thin is the thread to grasp.
Facts are ridiculed, and why? It's truly a puzzle....

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.